NOTE: This is the first in a series of posts on P2P technology and game publishing. Please subscribe to our news feed or check back soon for more. – Ed

We at Solid State Networks have been steadfast in our belief that user experience (“UX”) should be the highest priority when developing the types of content delivery solutions that we develop.

UX in the context of software applications is primarily associated with the user’s perception of usability. At Solid State, our concept of providing a quality UX also includes transparency to the user (we mean transparency in the human sense and not as typically used with computing).

An application’s UX goes well beyond the user’s immediate perception and extends throughout the many ways that a user may be impacted by the application. Therefore, we strive to make applications that any user can control easily and intuitively, even if they do not completely comprehend all that they are controlling.

We believe that transparency is especially important with P2P applications. P2P can provide a benefit to publishers and consumers alike, but at the end of the day, the resources used in P2P belong to the user and not to a publisher or P2P vendor.

We decided long ago that we should be able to clearly communicate to users when, how and why they would (or would not) be a participant in a P2P network. Yet, we do not want to encumber users with complex rules and instructions.

Ideally, as gamers, we would like to see that all publishers provide users the ability to opt out of a P2P network. However, we also think it is acceptable for a publisher to require players’ participation in the P2P network, especially when the content delivered is free to users, such as in a free-to-play game. That said, it seems obvious (to us, anyway) that requiring P2P participation comes with the responsibility that publishers and vendors provide an indication that there is a P2P application running along with easily accessible controls to disable it.

Central to our own ideas around a user’s P2P participation is the state of that user’s engagement with the publisher. For example, if a player is downloading a game, that player may be required to participate in a P2P network. When that player then makes a disengaging action (i.e., by closing the download or game application) then that user should also be removed from the P2P network for that publisher’s content. Why? Because once that player has disengaged and moved on to something else (say, watching a video on YouTube or just walking away from their system) then it is reasonable for them to believe that they have concluded their business with that publisher. If, at that time, the publisher would like to continue to utilize that user’s resources then the user should be asked for permission to do so.

To us, employing a P2P participation policy that is based on user engagement is fair, transparent and respectful to the user that is ultimately contributing their resources to the network. Additionally, it minimizes any risk of users that may not be aware of the implications of P2P uploading and the impact it may have on the performance of other devices using that Internet connection. Perhaps more importantly, it may avert unplanned consumption of Internet usage, particularly for users that are on limited usage plans that may be required to pay overage fees.

- Rick Buonincontri, CEO, Solid State Networks

Related Links:
Main P2P Best Practices Page
Responsible Use of P2P Technology in Games (video)
More P2P Best Practices News and Blogs

Tags: HR 1319, Informed P2P User Act, P2P, P2P Best Practices, Rick Buonincontri, Solid State Networks